to the suffering of the people engaged in agriculture or rural development activities who account for a disproportionately large number of Indians engaged in those occupations.

Rural poverty in India has yet another dimension which the Finance Minister must take account of. In rural India, whereas only 20 per cent of the population of Punjab and Haryana is below the poverty line, the figure goes up to 63 per cent in Bihar. There are such major variations in the incidence of poverty in the country as a whole that it is for the Finance Minister to use his Budget as an instrument for accelerating poverty eradication in States where poverty is larger and helping those States who are nearer the margin to pull the rest of their population above the poverty line.

That kind of attention is given so readily to an ESSAR that runs into problems in New York or to a private sector power project in Visakhapatnam and things like that. The Finance Ministry are so preoccupied with looking after the interests of a few rich Indians and very rich multinationals that they completely altered the Telecom Policy because they were threatened by a few Indian business houses and their multi-million multinational partners. But when it came to wheat, they could not find the time to pay attention to the fact that the Indian farmer was suffering on account of wheat import. It is this kind of distortion that I am warning against.

We also have variations in the rate of poverty eradication. For example, in Rajasthan, between the late '50s and early '90s, the reduction in the share of the population below the poverty line fell by only one per cent, from 46 per cent to 45 per cent, whereas in States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, both of whose poverty levels were higher in the late '50s and both of these States had a poverty ratio of 69 per cent, they brought it down to 41 per cent and 33 per cent respectively. So, the performance of States with regard to poverty eradication is varying greatly. What the Finance Minister ought to be doing is using his powers, both of the purse and of persuasion to get these kind of inequalities also changed.

We need employment, we need credit, we need food in the rural areas. Those are the three most important instruments of poverty eradication, yet the amount of time dealt with on these subjects in the Budget is so disproportionate to what is given to the corporate sector.

ɦ{i ɽn : hɶE +ɮ V, +{E E xɽ * n +{ I{ i EM, i Vn Vn xxҪ n M EM* +{E {] 11-12 M * +{ I{ +{x i E i Vn +SU M*

h E +ɮ : BE ʤxn {ɮ +{x i E E ɨ{i EM* ʡ V +{x E , = {ɮ + V>M*

To remove poverty apart from employment credit and food, decentralization is the single most important element. Now, both Shri Yashwant Sinha and myself have been bureaucrats. So, no one knows better than us the ills of the bureaucracy. So long as the bureaucratization and politicisation of grassroots development continues, thus long there would not be grassroots development. We do need to bring in the Panchayat Raj institutions. Yet, I do not think that any Finance Minister till today has taken into account the Panchayat Raj institutions' fiscal deficit in calculating what the overall deficit of the country is.

Now, Sir, under the Constitution, we have the State Finance Commissions, many of whom, I think, most of whom have presented specific recommendations which are at varying stages of implementation in the States, and that will result in large sums of money going to the local bodies for their development. What we need to know is whether there is a rectification of the current imbalance where the States place upon local bodies big responsibilities for raising revenues, to keep the revenues so raised for themselves and for their own expenditure. So, a Finance Minister, I think, now in the light of the 1992 Constitution Amendment, the Reports of the State Finance Commissions, and above all the Report that is due to come shortly from the Khusro Commission, the Eleventh Finance Commission, which has been specifically mandated to look into the finances of the local bodies, will have to address these issues when he is dealing with the finances of this country.

In the light of this, I would now come to the specifics of what we have before us. We have a Supplementary Demand for Rs. 14,500 crore in terms of net cash outgo. There are a few thousand crores of rupees which are accounted for in other ways and, therefore, I do not wish to go into that because that is merely a matter of accounting. What we now have is that a sum of Rs. 14,500 crore is being asked from us, which cannot but aggravate the fiscal deficit and which cannot but compound the current fiscal crisis. This is what is disturbing the macro economic framework. If the macro-economic framework is disturbed, then there is very little hope for micro-economic decisions to be able to reverse the adverse consequences of going wrong with the macro-economic framework.

I am particularly concerned that the proposals that have been placed before us are much more disproportionately on the Revenue Account, which means that the increase that is being sought by the Finance Minister is much higher as a percentage of the Revenue Account,then a percentage of the total expenditure. We must see as to how this has happened.

There is one Demand, which is now not only unavoidable but to be supported, and that is, the Demand for replenishing the Army, the Armed Forces stores for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force on account of the unfortunate war that took place in Kargil between May and July of this year. Of course, I wish to state now that that war was avoidable. If the Government had been just a little bit more alert about the intrusions that had been taking place for close on eight months before they were identified in the Kargil sector, perhaps we would not have had to suffer this war at all. But we would deal with these matters in detail after the K. Subramaniam Committee Report is presented to us. For the moment I just wish to flag this. But when I see that Demand No. 17, which relates to Defence Pensions, it is 50 per cent higher than the Budget Estimate and it constitutes 25 per cent of the total demand for net cash outgo that is being presented to us by the Finance Minister, I ask myself whether this could not have been anticipated earlier.

For, in the papers that have been circulated to us, Demand No.17 for a sum of Rs.3,675 crore is explained as follows:

"The Supplementary Grant appropriation is required to meet additional expenditure on account of payment of arrears to pre-1986 and post-1996 pensioners, dearness relief to re-employed and other pensioners, ex-gratia payment, leave encashment, medical allowance, restoration of commutation, etc."

All these are not related to Kargil. They could have been anticipated when the Budget was presented. They should have been anticipated when the Budget was presented but they were not so anticipated. What I want to know from the Finance Minister is this. Why were they not anticipated? Were they not anticipated to help him to present a pretty picture when he presented the Budget? Or are there real inescapable reasons for suddenly burdening us with Rs.3,675 crore on this account when it should really have been done earlier.

In a similar manner, I turn to Demand No.29, "Transfers to State and Union Territory Governments", which also accounts for 25 per cent of the total net cash outgo that he has mentioned. Most of this money, almost all of it, is for creating an Extended Ways and Means Advances Facility for reforms-linked assistance to State Governments. Was he not contemplating reforms at the time of the presentation of his Budget? Did he not know what these reforms would be? Could he not know and guess that these reforms could have an impact on the finances of the State Governments? Why did he not anticipate this Extended Ways and Means Advances Facility at the time of the Budget? Why now? Why at a time when the country has to pay for something as unavoidable as the Kargil war do we have to be burdened to the extent of 25 per cent by financing a facility which should have been thought of before he moved into his second stage of reforms?

ɦ{i ɽn : +{E {] E Eֱ 45 ʨx] ʨɱ + +{x 45 ʨx] ʱɪ *

h E +ɮ : ɺ BE ʨx] ɨ{i Ei *

Lastly, the Finance Minister, in Demand No.79 has asked for another Rs.1000 crore. If we take up the two demands that I have already mentioned which amounts to Rs.6000 and odd crore, nearly Rs.7,000 crore, plus this Rs.8,000 crore, it is more than 50 per cent of the total you are asking for. He has asked for Rs.1032 crore for investment in the National Highway Authority of India. Now, investing in this is a good idea but for him to bring it on us in the middle of a year when we are in a serious financial crisis is wrong. Either he should have anticipated this level of expenditure in March and said it was part of his Budget, in which case, of course, all the plaudits that he got from those very same gentlemen who have now anointed him as the Finance Minister, would not have been available, or, he should have deliberately, responsibly delayed making this provision until the next Budget. It is this kind of fiscal indiscipline on the part of the Finance Minister that is landing us increasingly in the double helix of the financial crisis. Therefore, I would urge the Finance Minister to take all these points into serious account before he concludes this debate and asks us to vote for his Grants. We will vote for his Grants but only after we have satisfied ourselves that he is going to be more responsible in the coming six months than he has shown himself in the last six months.

Sxɪxxn ɨ (Vx{֮) : ɦ{i V, ɹ 1999-2000 E ʱB V] E Ƥv +x{ڮE +xnx E M {ɮ SS E ʱB ={ʺli * + ɮ ʨj h E V x +x{ڮE M {ɮ E V] {ɮ Vn EU E * Vɤ V] |ɺii E Mɪ l iɤ nx E n xɽ l* <ʱB = E E {ڮ Ex E ʱB V] {ɮ Vn * =xE vxɴn ni E =xx V] E + ʴii j E |ɶƺ E *

BE M ƺn x E xi Mh +Mh E {ڮ vx i * =xx =x MhiE ʤxn+ {ɮ nx E vx +Eʹi E Vɺ M ʴii j x V] |ɺii Ei ɨɪ Jɺ vx n l* ʴii j V E vxɴn ni E =xx n E ʴ{ɮi {ʮʺliɪ n E +lǴɴɺl E iʱi Jx E ʱB V |ɪɺ EB, +{x +{ {U 50 ɹ BE <iɽɺ Ei + +n Ei * +V V ʴiiҪ ʺli , =E +vɮ {ɮ E Ei E g 14 Vɮ Ec {B E V M E M< , ɽ E< Vn xɽ * ɽ `E Vɺ VEҪ P] E + xxҪ hɶE V x nx E vx +Eʹi E , ɽ < ɮEɮ E ɨx BE Sxi Ex =E ɨx xxҪ ʴii j V = Jڤ E EM Vɺ Jڤ ʤMc +lǴɴɺl E {] x E ʱB =xx E*

n {U 6 ɽx V P]xB P] , ɽ xʶSi +{x +{ +ni . =xE =n xɽ l* V] |ɺii Ei ɨɪ =E E{x xɽ l* t{ VxiE Eɮh nںɮ ʨj <E +ɱSx E Ei Ex S ɽ E |vx j V x |ɪɺ E l E Ҩ+ {ɮ E< B E] {n x Vɺɺ I n {ɮ Vn JS Ex E Vɰi {c* <ʱB =xx ɽ ɺ j E, Ƥv vɮx E Eʶɶ E* Ex {c ɹ] E , < +ɺx ɨZ Ei * Vɤ M`vx ɮEɮ {l l = ɨɪ {c n BE Sx ɮEɮ +{nl E V l* {c n E ƶ + xʺEi E , = {ɮ ]{{h xɽ E Ei Ex <ix +ɶ E Ei E ɽ n ɹ I JS E ɮ {EE V] Ex E ʺli xɽ i * BE +xʶSii x i * E ɽ JS I V] g Vi , E ɽ JS Mɽ jɱɪ E JS g Vi * Vɤ {c n ɮ n Pֺ E +i + +ɴɺl {n Ei , =ɺ x{]x E ʱB iiEʱE <iVɨ E Vɰi i * Vɤ =xE iɮ vx ni i xʶSi JS gi * ڱ { ʴii j E vx +Eʹi Ex SɽM E Vɽ V] n E +lǴɴɺl vɮx E ʱB c-c ={ɪ EB MB, =ɺ n E +lǴɴɺi vɮ* V ɮ ʨj Jn x E ɮ Vɮ V +V ʺli ɽ {U 50 ɹ xɽ l* ɮ {ɺ ֮Ii ʴn p Vix +V , =ix {ɽ E xɽ l* V +V pɺi E n , <ɺ {ɽ ɽ E xɽ l* +V ɮ bɮ Vix Jtxx , <E {ɽ E xɽ l* ɽ ʮEb ɽi E ɨɪ V iɪ E , <E ʱB ʴi j V +ʦxxnxҪ , =xE |ɪɺ Mi M Ex ɽ nJ E +ɶSɪ E +xi{nE ɨɱ Vn + =i{nE ɨɱ E JS i * h E V x Eʹ E + `E vx +Eʹi E* Eʹ =i{n gx E + vx nx M* l-l Mƴ Eʹ =i{n gx E ʱB Vɺ <xɺ]ESɮ E Vɰi , = gx E +ɴɶEi M* Mƴ cE , ɽ ʺS< E vx , ɽ V SV {n E Vi , =E JɮJɴ E vx * Z ɽ Vx E +ɶSɪ + E 23 Vɮ Ec {B E ɤV + c Vx E Eɮh E nB Vi * =xE JɮJɴ E E< <iVɨ xɽ * +Mɮ =E ʱB E] JV i, ʴn Vɮ JV i i +SU i E ɽ { ɮ ʱB BE vx xi + xɪi E {i* +{x +lǴɴɺl E `E Ex E ʱB =i{nEi E l-l xɪi E + vx nx M* xɪi n xɽ gM i Eix |ɪɺ E VB +{x +lǴɴɺl E ng xɽ E Ei* xɪi E]Ū {n < SV E xɽ Ei ʱE BO |bE] E E V Ei *

17.20 hrs. (Dr. Raghuvansh Prasad Singh in the Chair)

+Mɮ ɤV E + vx ni, =E ʱɪ Vɮ iɱɶi + ɤV =i{nE E ƮIh ni i +SU i {ɮxi +ɶSɪ E i E =xE E |Eɮ E E< ƮIh xɽ n Vi* ɺx E iɮ E< ƮIh xɽ n V * ɽ +ɱ {n Ei Ex Vɮ ɴ x ʨɱx = Vɮ BE {ɪ E +ɱ Sx {ci VɤE S{ xx ɱ S{ xE 200 {ɪ E E ɴ Si * + ʤVɪ BE ɴɺʪE ɱ * EE =i{ni ɺi+ E ʱɪ =Si Vɮ xɽ ʨɱi, <ʱɪ <E + vx xɽ n Vi* E< ɴɺl xɽ {i * B ɴɺl E Vɪ E <x V ɴɺʪE ɱ E + vx n Vx Sʽ, B ʴii j xɴnx * + ɪn x< Eʹ xi + , =ɨ ʨɱ E n Vɪ Vɺɺ + ʤVɪ E ʱɪ =Si iɴɮh, =Si ʴ{hx x Ei *

ɦ{i ɽn, < iɮ ڱ E Ji EE = xɪi E nx Eɡ j ʴn p +Vi E V Ei * ʮESɮ E nɮ = =i{nx E Vɮ +SU VMɽ n Ei * n֦M E i E ɮ vx <vɮ xɽ Mɪ + ʴn ɮ n ڱ =i{nx E ʱɪ |ɪix E * =xE l ɽM E { xɽ, ɽ ɮ xi {ɮ xɦǮ EM* +Mɮ ɮ vx ڱ =i{nx E + Mɪ i i xʶSi { ʴn p |{i E V Ei * < iɮ xv E i * +Mɮ ɮ vx ڱ =i{nx E + Mɪ i i xʶSi ʴn p |{i E V Ei * +V ʴɶ +ɪִn E + g * +ɪִn xx ɱ +v ɮi E =ij M ʨɱi * ɮ ɨp i] {ɮ {n i * +Mɮ =E + vx n i ʴn Eɡ j ʴn p |{i Ei * Ex E +ɶɪ ɽ E Vix <xE iɮ vx nM, =ix ɮ Eʹ =i{nx gM* Vix JS EM =ix +ixɦǮ EM* ɮ BE ʨj E i E JS g * =cҺ SFi +ɪM, =E E x E{x xɽ E l* ɮ E< ʨj x ɽ M E l E ɹ]Ҫ +{n E xx Sʽ iE B ʴ{n+ x{]x E ʱɪ V] {ɪ{i vx ={ɱɤv Eɪ Vɪ Vɺɺ +{n +x {ɮ +iʮEi +x{ڮE M E uɮ {ڮ Ex E +ɴɶEi x *

ɦ{i ɽn, I JS g * <E 2-3 Eɮh EE EɮMɱ E P]x +|iʳi { <* <E ɨx Ex {c + V JS + , =ɺ xɽ S V Ei l* x V M Eɨ E l =xE xɱ gx E ʱɪ il =xE {ʮɮ E ƮIh nx E ʱɪ JS +* V M +ɽi ֪ ɽn ֪, =xE ƮIh E ʱɪ ɮEɮ x ɽi EU E* ɽ BE =nɽh V {ɽ E xɽ + l*

ɦ{i ɽn, xE E ix, ii + +x ʴv+ r E M< , ɽ r +|iʶi { +< * <x M E xɱ gx E ʱɪ JS E Mɪ * ɽ {ɮ Vɺ cE E SS E M< , =E ʱɪ +ɶSɪ E 50 ɱ = cE E xɽ n {ɪ* ɽ ɱڨ E {ɽ uɮ 70 {ɮ] ]ɺ{] i l + + ɽ 40 {ɮ] {ɮ + Mɪ + 60 |iɶi b uɮ i * ɱ E fֱ< cE E vɨ i * Vɤ iE cE E xɽ Vc VɪM, iɤ iE iɪi E ɨɱ {U M* iɪi {U x E iɱɤ E +{x =i{ni ɱ =Si E] xɽ ɨɪ {ɮ {ɽS {ɪM*